Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 31523 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2006 14:21:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Aug 2006 14:21:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 45821 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2006 14:21:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 45729 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2006 14:21:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 45676 invoked by uid 99); 7 Aug 2006 14:21:03 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:21:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.198] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (209.237.227.198) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:21:02 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EF07142D0 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:18:17 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <5333775.1154960297144.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-639) [PATCH] Slight performance improvement for readVInt() of IndexInput In-Reply-To: <25591452.1154075533973.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-639?page=comments#action_12426225 ] Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-639: ------------------------------------- > I also think that you drew your conclusion too fast. My conclusion was that I didn't personally have more time to spend on this right now given that initial results with a lucene index were dissapointing on a major platform with the latest JVMs. If people want to run this test on other platforms, or create even more realistic tests, that's fine with me... I'll still listen in :-) > [PATCH] Slight performance improvement for readVInt() of IndexInput > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-639 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-639 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Index > Affects Versions: 2.0.0 > Reporter: Johan Stuyts > Priority: Minor > Attachments: Lucene2ReadVIntPerformance.patch, readVInt performance results.pdf, ReadVIntPerformanceMain.java > > > By unrolling the loop in readVInt() I was able to get a slight, about 1.8 %, performance improvement for this method. The test program invoked the method over 17 million times on each run. > I ran the performance tests on: > - Windows XP Pro SP2 > - Sun JDK 1.5.0_07 > - YourKit 5.5.4 > - Lucene trunk -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org